Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO., Appellant, v. Mayme A. BRETZ, Widow of Oliver B. Bretzr Appellee, 1929 — 29 F.2d 1019 · caselaw · US
General
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO., Appellant, v. Mayme A. BRETZ, Widow of Oliver B. Bretzr Appellee
29 F.2d 1019·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1929
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO., Appellant, v. Mayme A. BRETZ, Widow of Oliver B. Bretzr Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
January 3, 1929.
No. 3890.
See, also, 19 F.(2d) 960.
John W. Huxley, Jr., of Wilmington, Del., for appellant.
Frederick H. Warner and Clarence P. Sterner, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for ap-pellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and Mc VICAR, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The appeal in the above-entitled ease is dismissed. See Beaupre v. Noyes, 138 U. S. 397, 402, 11 S. Ct. 296, 34 L. Ed. 991.